See my published works

March 9, 2009 5:38 AM

Supporting material when submitting a grant application for art: if the supporting material is a whole publication, is it better to pull samples, or show the whole thing? General arts grant advice also welcome.

At the moment, I'm preparing an application, and they allow for x images of work as supporting material. I got in touch to find out whether a publication counted as an image or whether I should include a spread/extract/photo, and they said it was my call. This has arisen a few times and I'm not sure what approach I should take.

The publications are zines and a book. In some cases, a spread would totally give an understanding of the whole, and in others, the whole is made up of simple components that become a bit more when all together. It's often cheaper to send the whole publication than get decent prints, bizarrely enough.

If you've assessed applications, which approach would you prefer? Is either going to count against me, now that I know neither will disqualify me?

(I am still at the portfolio-building/work-generating stage creatively, and am trying to find opportunities to build a cohesive body of work through individual projects, which would be massively helped by grants. So for a given submission, my options for supporting work are finite.)

Generally:

I'm finding myself writing grant applications frequently, and I'm kind of stumbling around in the dark. It terrifies me and on personal work, I often get most of the way through formalising an application for a project I would love to undertake, and then chicken out instead of submitting. Any book/website/forum/article recommendations or advice would be great.

I'm in Ireland and (on work expererience leave from) studying architecture, so I wouldn't be able to undertake a grantwriting course.

posted by carbide to media & arts (4 comments total)

I can only speak from a Canadian perspective, so it may not apply.

Supporting material: In general, the material will prove what you say in your narrative. Within the parameters that the granting organization has sent out, try to answer the criteria. For instance, if the grant stresses diversity/range of work, then send in a spread. If the grant stresses published work or if your work in unclear excerpted, then send in the whole thing. It depends on the focus of the grant, or the project you are applying with.

Personally, as a juror on grants on the national level, (where I often don't know most of the applicants, as opposed to local, or provincial juries where I do) more often than not, I like holding real things in my hands, ie. the publications. That is a completely generalized personal opinion. In Canada, most juries/advisory boards are made up artists in the same field, so hopefully they can evaluate either a full publication or a spread in relation to your proposed project.

As for the nuts and bolts of grant-writing - Most grants I have ever come across in at least 10 years of writing, and working on them follow a basic formula.

WHAT - What is proposal. Articulate it clearly and succinctly as possible. Forget 'grant-speak' or 'buzz-words' that you think might get the jurors' attention. Jurors are reading tons of submissions, don't obfuscate your idea with jargon. Be as sincere as possible, and be genuine.

WHY - Inspiration, impulses to create the work. Here, being genuine and tapping into how it is related to you resonates strongly with juries. They are artists too. Talk about the art!

WHO - You, obviously. Where you came from, why you are changing, where your art is going. History of work, bio, resume, publication list etc. You can also include collaborators, or artistic or community partners, if relevant.

HOW - This is the part that often kills a proposal. It is about feasibility. Will this artist be able to carry out this proposal? You might have your budget here, as well as a workplan. What the juries what to see is planning. For instance, if you need some particular equipment, have you arranged that or contacted someone already? Does the timeframe make sense in terms of the proposal? Juries want to feel confident that the money will not be wasted, that the artist can confidently achieve what they proposed. Lots of artists have great ideas, but can they follow through?

And lastly, please, please, don't use anything smaller than a 11pt font and squeeze all the margins and line spacing, cramming your grant into the allocated page requirements. The juries have to read many, many submissions. Be kind to their eyes. The likelihood is that you need to articulate your idea more simply if you think you need more space.

This is quite long, sorry didn't mean to go on and on. This is a general rule of thumb, that I teach, as well as still apply when faced with a monster of a grant. (I didn't include WHERE for you, as it didn't seem relevant, but might be for somebody esle.) Congrats for getting your stuff together and starting to apply. It's tough, and the details are tricky, but try to think of all the details like, "I am making it easier for these nice people/government to give me money so that I can do art." If you need help or have more questions, often the granting officers can help you (at least in Canada they will.) Don't give up! You can do it!
posted by typewriter at 6:34 AM on March 9 [2 favorites]

By the way, I found the explanation of your zine quite clear.
posted by typewriter at 6:40 AM on March 9

I write a lot of proposals for my wife. With the economy the way it is, I've been focusing on Public Art RFQ's , and most of those ( that I've encountered, anyway) have policies for support materials. IMHO, those materials are a separate entity, epecially if they do not make a distinction in the RFQ. I usally send them as a PDF, and mention that originals can be made available if necessary.

As far as writing grants, I do heavy research on the agencies making the call. I try to almost cyber-stalk them in an attempt to glean info. I try to find out who is on the selection committee...then Google them. I look for previous RFQ's and find out who was chosen. Art is probably more subjective than architecture, but if you dig deep enough, you might get a glimpse into the mind of the judges. Good luck!
posted by lobstah at 6:46 AM on March 9

typewriter, that's awesome - really clear and it makes sense. Thank you. I have been taking a similar approach, albeit with less structure (and after working on an assessment process, I know that seemingly frustrating requirements probably make the other end a ton less painful so I'm ok with the "8 copies of x, 2 copies of y" dance).

lobstah: I am with you on the research, and find it really useful (and sometimes reassuring to find out that previous recipients are not superhuman).
posted by carbide at 3:36 PM on March 9